High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants who are five in number, Sri Ram Krishna Dubey, Advocate (A/R-0797 of 2012) holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet dated 20.01.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.364 of 2018, under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Budaun and the entire proceeding of Case No.774 of 2019 (State Vs. Nitin Sankhdhar and 4 others).

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 happened to be the husband, applicant no.2 Jeth, applicant no.3 Devar, applicant no.4 mother-in-law and applicant no.5 is brother- in-law of the opposite party no.2, applicant no.1's marriage stood solemnized with the victim on 12.12.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a First Information Report came to be lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 17.11.2018 being FIR No.0364 of 2018, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun, under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC with an allegation that the marital relationship of the opposite party no.2 with applicant no.1 were not proper and appropriate as offences were being committed under Sections 376 and 377 IPC and so much so, the applicant no.2 who happens to be the Jeth also finding the opposite party no.2 all alone in a room and outraged her modesty.

5. Post investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC. The applicants challenged the same while filing application under Section 482 No.45821 of 2019, in which on 17.12.2019 following orders were passed: Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that cognizance order as well as summoning order passed in the matter on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer is illegal without applying judicial mind. Initially, on 14.8.2018, one complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the present applicants for the offence under sections 323, 504, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Nothing was disclosed in the said complaint to show the involvement of the applicants. Had the present offence been committed by the applicants, it must have come in the complaint itself. It is further submitted that present F.I.R. was lodged on 17.11.2018 after filing of the aforesaid complaint. Date and time of the incident was not disclosed in the F.I.R. For the first time, in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.1.2019 date of the offence was disclosed as month of June, 2017. Referring to the aforesaid facts it is further argued that statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded after due consultation and an afterthought in order to harass the applicants. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. Matter requires consideration. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2. Steps be taken by Registered Post A.D. within ten days. All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter on 11.02.2020 before the appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of case no.774 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.364 of 2018 under Sections 376, 377, 504, 323, 313 IPC, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Budaun shall remain stayed as against the applicants. It is made clear that if steps, as directed above, are not taken within the aforesaid period, this interim order shall automatically come to an end.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 14.08.2018 prior to lodging of the present FIR, a complaint was lodged by opposite party no.2 being Complaint Case No.132 of 2018, against the applicants, wherein, there was no such allegation of commission of the offences under Sections 376, 377 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants while inviting attention towards supplementary affidavit dated 05.09.2024 has invited attention towards Annexure No.SA-2 at page 11 reference whereof has been made in para 5 that the parties have entered into compromise with respect to the proceedings in Case No.774 of 2019, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 313, 377 IPC and a application had also been filed before the court below while inviting attention towards Annexure No.SA-3 reference whereof has been in para 6 of the supplementary affidavit that the compromise had been entered into between the parties with respect to the proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 15.03.2023.

7. Further, while inviting attention towards the Annexure No.SA-4, it is contended that in the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, compromise has been entered and while further inviting attention towards para 8 of the Annexure No.5, it is contended that proceedings have been initiated under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act which resulted into separation.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants thus, submits that in the wake of the aforesaid intervening facts and entered into compromise between the parties, a direction be issued to the court below to verify the compromise.

9. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that already parties have entered into compromise and now the opposite party no.2 stands separated post passing of a decree under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

10. Considering the submissions so made across the bar as well as the fact that in the present proceedings purported to be under Sections 376, 377, 313, 323 and 504 IPC, the parties have entered into compromise and the same has been filed before the court below. A copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 at page 12 of the supplementary affidavit, the compromise in question and bearing in mind that the parties have themselves entered into compromise in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in Case No.132 of 2018, under Sections 498-A read with 3/4 D.P. Act and also in proceedings in Case No.132 of 2018 following in the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, parties they do not intend to further prosecute the matter, thus, looking into the over all fact situation, circumstances necessitate the court below to verify the compromise dated 03.02.2023.

11. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following terms: A- The applicant shall file a self attested copy of the present application, supplementary affidavit along with the certified copy of the order passed today before the court below by 25.07.2025. rejoinder affidavit counter affidavit, B- On the said motion, the court below shall proceed to verify the compromise.

12. Till the verification of compromise, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No.774 of 2019 (State Vs. Nitin Sankhdhar and 4 others), under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun.

13. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 S.A. SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants who are five in number, Sri Ram Krishna Dubey, Advocate (A/R-0797 of 2012) holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the charge sheet dated 20.01.2019 submitted in Case Crime No.364 of 2018, under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun as well as summoning order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Budaun and the entire proceeding of Case No.774 of 2019 (State Vs. Nitin Sankhdhar and 4 others).

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.1 happened to be the husband, applicant no.2 Jeth, applicant no.3 Devar, applicant no.4 mother-in-law and applicant no.5 is brother- in-law of the opposite party no.2, applicant no.1's marriage stood solemnized with the victim on 12.12.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a First Information Report came to be lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 17.11.2018 being FIR No.0364 of 2018, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun, under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC with an allegation that the marital relationship of the opposite party no.2 with applicant no.1 were not proper and appropriate as offences were being committed under Sections 376 and 377 IPC and so much so, the applicant no.2 who happens to be the Jeth also finding the opposite party no.2 all alone in a room and outraged her modesty.

5. Post investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC. The applicants challenged the same while filing application under Section 482 No.45821 of 2019, in which on 17.12.2019 following orders were passed: Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that cognizance order as well as summoning order passed in the matter on the basis of charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer is illegal without applying judicial mind. Initially, on 14.8.2018, one complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the present applicants for the offence under sections 323, 504, 498-A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Nothing was disclosed in the said complaint to show the involvement of the applicants. Had the present offence been committed by the applicants, it must have come in the complaint itself. It is further submitted that present F.I.R. was lodged on 17.11.2018 after filing of the aforesaid complaint. Date and time of the incident was not disclosed in the F.I.R. For the first time, in the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. on 5.1.2019 date of the offence was disclosed as month of June, 2017. Referring to the aforesaid facts it is further argued that statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded after due consultation and an afterthought in order to harass the applicants. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. Matter requires consideration. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2. Steps be taken by Registered Post A.D. within ten days. All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter on 11.02.2020 before the appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of case no.774 of 2019 arising out of case crime no.364 of 2018 under Sections 376, 377, 504, 323, 313 IPC, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I, Budaun shall remain stayed as against the applicants. It is made clear that if steps, as directed above, are not taken within the aforesaid period, this interim order shall automatically come to an end.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 14.08.2018 prior to lodging of the present FIR, a complaint was lodged by opposite party no.2 being Complaint Case No.132 of 2018, against the applicants, wherein, there was no such allegation of commission of the offences under Sections 376, 377 IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants while inviting attention towards supplementary affidavit dated 05.09.2024 has invited attention towards Annexure No.SA-2 at page 11 reference whereof has been made in para 5 that the parties have entered into compromise with respect to the proceedings in Case No.774 of 2019, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 313, 377 IPC and a application had also been filed before the court below while inviting attention towards Annexure No.SA-3 reference whereof has been in para 6 of the supplementary affidavit that the compromise had been entered into between the parties with respect to the proceedings under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act initiated by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 15.03.2023.

7. Further, while inviting attention towards the Annexure No.SA-4, it is contended that in the proceedings under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, compromise has been entered and while further inviting attention towards para 8 of the Annexure No.5, it is contended that proceedings have been initiated under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act which resulted into separation.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants thus, submits that in the wake of the aforesaid intervening facts and entered into compromise between the parties, a direction be issued to the court below to verify the compromise.

9. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that already parties have entered into compromise and now the opposite party no.2 stands separated post passing of a decree under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

10. Considering the submissions so made across the bar as well as the fact that in the present proceedings purported to be under Sections 376, 377, 313, 323 and 504 IPC, the parties have entered into compromise and the same has been filed before the court below. A copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 at page 12 of the supplementary affidavit, the compromise in question and bearing in mind that the parties have themselves entered into compromise in the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in Case No.132 of 2018, under Sections 498-A read with 3/4 D.P. Act and also in proceedings in Case No.132 of 2018 following in the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, parties they do not intend to further prosecute the matter, thus, looking into the over all fact situation, circumstances necessitate the court below to verify the compromise dated 03.02.2023.

11. Accordingly, the application is being decided in the following terms: A- The applicant shall file a self attested copy of the present application, supplementary affidavit along with the certified copy of the order passed today before the court below by 25.07.2025. rejoinder affidavit counter affidavit, B- On the said motion, the court below shall proceed to verify the compromise.

12. Till the verification of compromise, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in Case No.774 of 2019 (State Vs. Nitin Sankhdhar and 4 others), under Sections 377, 376, 504, 323, 313 IPC, Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun.

13. The protection accorded to the applicants is only available subject to compliance of the terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 S.A. SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad